chris groves_is it all about risk learning the right lessons from gm for nanofoods
DESCRIPTION
Parallel session 8TRANSCRIPT
Is it all about risk?Learning the right lessons from GM for nanofoods
Dr Chris GrovesExternal AssociateBRASS, Cardiff University, [email protected]
Image from Friends of the Earth
Spiked Online, 11 June 2004
February 2004
2003:
2004:
Nano-risk: a UK government view
UK Nanotech Strategy stressed management of risks over support for benefits
Must ensure the public is “informed and
confident about nanotechnologies” (p. 2)
“reassured that products on the market are safe for them to buy” (p. 9)
Journal of Business Ethics (2011) 101: 525-552DOI: 10.1007/s10551-010-0731-7
© Springer 2011
Industry views
On the public:“But of course public will always take the negatives as more important, obviously. Because their own safety is what matters most for them.”
Source #9
On the media::“And I guess you always get journalists who basically, maybe do half a job and just report on all the dreadful things that could potentially happen.”
Source #13
On engagement::“I mean mobile phones is a great example where there was a potential risk of electromagnetic radiation and so on, at the end of the day people discounted that risk because they wanted a mobile phone.”
Source #7
“I’m a cynic I'm afraid on this, because I've been in the GM food industry. Companies can shout all they like about how wonderful their products are. At the end of the day it comes to, to you know, people putting their hands in their pockets and pulling out and buying the product.”
Source #5
Who will put their ‘head over the parapet’?
Representative of a food industry body:“It is very difficult for them to say anything. If they don't say anything then people will think they are doing it anyway and if they say well we are not going to involve ourselves in this nanotechnology thing then I don't believe that. With all these benefits of course they are looking at it. [...]”
“I have companies that do not want us to use the word nano, they are happy to join the focus group, they are happy to join in things, but they just say “take the word nano out, don't use it at all!”’
Source #6
Reducing the deficit
Classic deficit model of science communication Public is scientifically
ignorant Ignorance breeds fear of
the unknown must educate public …but is the public
educable?
Kearnes and Wynne (2007)1: a model of affective deficit Public has lost trust in
science and technology Information does not
affect emotion must appeal directly to
emotion (“confidence”, “enthusiasm”)
1. Kearnes, M. and B. Wynne (2007). "On nanotechnology and ambivalence: the politics of enthusiasm." Nanoethics 1: 131-142.
“We believe everyone should be a confident consumer of science and technology” (p. 27)”
Reputational risk
Contemporary salience of reputational risk Regulators need to be seen
to be precautionary Businesses need to ‘keep
their heads down’
Frames ‘stakeholders as sources of threat to legitimacy’
Organisations ‘may be over-responsive to public concerns’
Theoretical support
Cognitive science view of cognitive biases
Public lacks understanding of risk and chance
NGOs and/or governments and/or corporations and/or media
may encourage overreaction to some risks
Daniel Kahneman
Paul Slovic
Lessons learnt from GM?
A new deficit model The public is a risk (to reputation, to
innovation) & deep irrationality is the root cause
Organisations need to encourage positive affect, thus protecting reputations Governments: act to restore ‘confidence’, ‘be
seen to be precautionary’ Companies: create exciting products and build
markets on enthusiasm
The wrong lessons?
Learning other lessons
“ [...] we have learnt that it is necessary with major technologies to ensure that the debate takes place at an early stage, as new areas emerge in the scientific and technological development process. This involves engaging with the public and understanding their aspirations and concerns around science and new technologies.”
UK Government (2005), Response to the RS/RAEng report, p. 3
2007
Recent research
20082011
So what worries “the public”?
Four main areas of concern
1. naturalness: with respect to e.g. food uses.
2. access: will benefits be fairly distributed?
3. trust: will any unanticipated risks be handled responsibly? Who is responsible?
4. transparency: can experts be trusted to admit the limits of their knowledge about potential hazards?
“Contrary to what scientists tend to worry about, public fears about technology risks are less about risks directly attributable to a technology than the social and regulatory context in which they are embedded.”
Cobb, M. D. and Macoubrie, J. 2004.
Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits, and trust.
Journal of Nanoparticle Research 6(4), pp. 395-405.
In a wider context... Two key conclusions from a broad range of research1
Awareness of nanotech remains low Nonetheless, attitudes generally positive or neutral across a range of
countries (USA, UK, EU, Japan, Korea)
Where nano-concerns exist, they are notprimarily about health and environmental risk Instead, are rooted in social and political
context (lack of trust in business, worriesabout transparency, etc.)
Evidence from other technologycontroversies GM, nuclear power, BSE etc. (Brian Wynne,
Sheila Jasanoff)
1 See e.g.
Gaskell, G., Ten Eyck, T., Jackson, J. & Veltri, G. Imagining nanotechnology: Cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Public Understanding of Science 14, 81–90 (2005).
Currall, S. C., King, E. B., Lane, N., Madera, J. & Turner, S. What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology? Nature Nanotechnology. 1, 153–155 (2006).
Contrasting lessons, contrasting assumptions
“Public as risk”
Defensive reputational risk management
“Participatory publics”
Early/ongoing deliberative engagement
Irrationality – only ‘knee-jerk’ responses
Isolated consumers Media as sole source of
info
Individuals already engaged with technology – implicitly deliberative
‘Publics’ not ‘public’ Draw on diverse sources of
information
Brittle or resilient innovation?
13-member expert panel (industry associations, nanoscience, social sciences, NGOs, policymakers)
Four scenarios for nanotech in the UK to 2020
Lack of public engagement seen as potential obstacle to innovation
Nanofood identified as potential flashpoint
Extreme reactions?
I l S i l v e s t r e(Italy)
“Biotechnology, like nanotechnology, represents the ultimate stage in increasing the power to exercise a more total dominion [...] of man over nature, animals and other humans – [...] the attack on life will assume new proportions and open up unimaginable scenarios”
Silvia Guerini, Il Silvestre, May 2006
“The ever more rapid acceleration of this technology will lead to the creation of nano-cyborgs that can self-replicate automatically without the help of a human”
Manifesto at http://liberaciontotal.lahaine.org/?p=3581
I n d i v i d u a l s Te n d i n g To w a r d s S a v a g e r y
(Individualidades tendiendo a lo salvaje, Mexico)
“La Naturaleza es
el bien, la
Civilización es el
mal…„
